Hillary Can’t Tell The Difference Between Democrats And Socialists

a reply to: IAMTAT

Mockery is not a substitute for discourse... this is another reason why Trump is despicable.

a reply to: DJW001

What mockery? You're the one slinging bad puns.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: DJW001

What mockery? You're the one slinging bad puns.

Rather than refute the parallels between Nazi values and Trump's values, you dismissed the first line with a dismissive remark. If you can't refute the list in detail, I submit my analysis is valid:

Nazism:
1. Patriotism is the highest virtue.
2. German exceptionalism.
3. Might makes right.
4. Foreigners and Liberals are the cause of Germany's problems.
5. We must act decisively to make our Germany great again.
6. We must deport all the foreigners.
7. We need a strong, charismatic leader who is not afraid to speak his mind and take decisive action.

Trump voters:
1. Patriotism is the highest virtue.
2. American exceptionalism.
3. Might makes right.
4. Foreigners and Liberals are the Cause of America's problems.
5. We must act decisively to make America great again.
6. We must deport all the foreigners.
7. We need a strong, charismatic leader who is not afraid to speak his mind and take decisive action.

The stakes here are very high. Hitler ran as a populist candidate. Once in office, he exploited a series of events, some possibly of his own instigation, to consolidate power. I have heard Trump talk about making America great again, I have heard him characterize foreigners as rapists and thieves, I have heard him threaten other nations with violence, but I have never, not once, heard him say he wants to return power to the people. Do you think a billionaire is going to take on the financial industry? Wall Street? He'll cut taxes all right, just not yours or mine.

a reply to: DJW001

Your comparison is a ridiculous one.
It make as much sense as me equating Obama Democrats to Nazism by comparing THIS:
ww2today.com...

to THIS:

stopobamanowsd.files.wordpress.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Ridicule, not discourse again. No wonder you like Trump; ridicule is his stock in trade.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IAMTAT

Ridicule, not discourse again. No wonder you like Trump; ridicule is his stock in trade.

Whereas 'Straw Man' arguments are the stock in trade of the Left.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IAMTAT

Ridicule, not discourse again. No wonder you like Trump; ridicule is his stock in trade.

Whereas 'Straw Man' arguments are the stock in trade of the Left.

Do you even know what a straw man fallacy is?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IAMTAT

Ridicule, not discourse again. No wonder you like Trump; ridicule is his stock in trade.

Whereas 'Straw Man' arguments are the stock in trade of the Left.

If you believe that my parallels are a "straw man," why not explain what Trump's platform actually is? That is how to refute a straw man argument. Incidentally, the title of this thread is a deliberate falsehood. Clinton obviously knows the difference between Democrats and Socialists; she just doesn't want to discuss it during the campaign.

Your false argument:

Trump supporters are Patriotic and have national pride
and...
Hitler supporters were Patriotic and had national pride
therefore...
Trump supporters are just like Nazis.

Ridiculous.

Try making some sense, and people may begin to take your arguments seriously.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Ridiculous.

Try making some sense, and people may begin to take your arguments seriously.

Wow. Are you capable of anything besides scorn? If you want Trump to manipulate you by appealing to your dark side, that's your prerogative. For the benefit of voters who really do love their country, I will lay this out again. Trump is neither a true populist, nor a Tea Partyer. He is an egomaniac who has exploited the crooked financial system for his own gain. He espouses hatreds that he knows will appeal to the unspoken beliefs of conservatives: white men are a threatened minority, anger is good, military aggression is healthy, America is above international law, respectful speech is for losers, might makes right, and so forth. I realize this is a bit off topic, but it is important. Donald Trump is an embarrassment on the world stage and the best inducement to vote for Clinton.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: amazing

I'd be more specific. Modern socialism isn't just helping people. It is taking from someone else to help others. This is the difference. See progressives love to dig in my pocket to help someone else.

As a conservative, I don't mind helping others. I do it all the time. I just don't like having my hard earned money stolen by the government and given to someone else.

I think the issue is that both conservatives and progressives want to help people. we just have different approaches. Conservatives rather charity begin at home and locally. Progressives want the government to do everything.

Look I'm all for smaller government, but you guys keep saying...that you don't want government taking money from your pockets to help other people and that it should be family and local communities that help each other. That's fine in theory.

Except it just doesn't work out like that all the time. There are thousands of scenarios like -Everyone else in your immediate family is dead-you immigrated (legally to escape death) and you had a catastrophic accident at work-your parents died in a car wreck-your community(church, friends, family and employement) was wiped out in a natural disaster...etc.

So what do you do with that homeless child with no family, that homeless guy that got brain damaged in a car wreck, that guy that lost everything and is homeless and sick, that family without health insurance because of ObamaCare, that wounded Vet from IRAQ...

Do we just let them rot and die on the streets? That's what your saying you'd like us to do. If you're saying you'd like us to help them a little bit at least keep them alive for a few days and stop that little homeless boy from becoming a male prostitute, then you're saying you would like some socialism but only to a degree. Yes?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: amazing

I'd be more specific. Modern socialism isn't just helping people. It is taking from someone else to help others. This is the difference. See progressives love to dig in my pocket to help someone else.

As a conservative, I don't mind helping others. I do it all the time. I just don't like having my hard earned money stolen by the government and given to someone else.

I think the issue is that both conservatives and progressives want to help people. we just have different approaches. Conservatives rather charity begin at home and locally. Progressives want the government to do everything.

Look I'm all for smaller government, but you guys keep saying...that you don't want government taking money from your pockets to help other people and that it should be family and local communities that help each other. That's fine in theory.

Except it just doesn't work out like that all the time. There are thousands of scenarios like -Everyone else in your immediate family is dead-you immigrated (legally to escape death) and you had a catastrophic accident at work-your parents died in a car wreck-your community(church, friends, family and employement) was wiped out in a natural disaster...etc.

So what do you do with that homeless child with no family, that homeless guy that got brain damaged in a car wreck, that guy that lost everything and is homeless and sick, that family without health insurance because of ObamaCare, that wounded Vet from IRAQ...

Do we just let them rot and die on the streets? That's what your saying you'd like us to do. If you're saying you'd like us to help them a little bit at least keep them alive for a few days and stop that little homeless boy from becoming a male prostitute, then you're saying you would like some socialism but only to a degree. Yes?

Why do you assume people are going to die in the streets if the federal government isn't involved? There are all kinds of local charities and services to serve those in need. I see it all the time in my local community where people VOLUNTARILY band together to help a family, person, or someone in need whether it is money, clothing, food, shelter, health care, etc.

I believe serving the needy is best done locally.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: amazing

I'd be more specific. Modern socialism isn't just helping people. It is taking from someone else to help others. This is the difference. See progressives love to dig in my pocket to help someone else.

As a conservative, I don't mind helping others. I do it all the time. I just don't like having my hard earned money stolen by the government and given to someone else.

I think the issue is that both conservatives and progressives want to help people. we just have different approaches. Conservatives rather charity begin at home and locally. Progressives want the government to do everything.

Look I'm all for smaller government, but you guys keep saying...that you don't want government taking money from your pockets to help other people and that it should be family and local communities that help each other. That's fine in theory.

Except it just doesn't work out like that all the time. There are thousands of scenarios like -Everyone else in your immediate family is dead-you immigrated (legally to escape death) and you had a catastrophic accident at work-your parents died in a car wreck-your community(church, friends, family and employement) was wiped out in a natural disaster...etc.

So what do you do with that homeless child with no family, that homeless guy that got brain damaged in a car wreck, that guy that lost everything and is homeless and sick, that family without health insurance because of ObamaCare, that wounded Vet from IRAQ...

Do we just let them rot and die on the streets? That's what your saying you'd like us to do. If you're saying you'd like us to help them a little bit at least keep them alive for a few days and stop that little homeless boy from becoming a male prostitute, then you're saying you would like some socialism but only to a degree. Yes?

Why do you assume people are going to die in the streets if the federal government isn't involved? There are all kinds of local charities and services to serve those in need. I see it all the time in my local community where people VOLUNTARILY band together to help a family, person, or someone in need whether it is money, clothing, food, shelter, health care, etc.

I believe serving the needy is best done locally.

Look, I see it too. Especially in Vegas with Catholic Charities and all kinds of non profits helping people that have no funding from the government. It's huge, but in reality, it's a small drop in the bucket.

If hospitals stopped serving people without health insurance how many people would die? If there was no medicaid or medicare where would those people turn to for healthcare? If ambulances stopped responding to homeless people, what would happen to them? If all welfare was cut off, how many people would lose homes and turn to crime. Serious questions. Secondly, if there was not federal or state funding for education, how would my children get educated? I couldn't afford a private school and my wife and I both work, we wouldn't be able to home school and then how would we be able to afford day care or a baysitter during the day? These are all serious concerns if you stopped all "socialism".

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: amazing

I'd be more specific. Modern socialism isn't just helping people. It is taking from someone else to help others. This is the difference. See progressives love to dig in my pocket to help someone else.

As a conservative, I don't mind helping others. I do it all the time. I just don't like having my hard earned money stolen by the government and given to someone else.

I think the issue is that both conservatives and progressives want to help people. we just have different approaches. Conservatives rather charity begin at home and locally. Progressives want the government to do everything.

Look I'm all for smaller government, but you guys keep saying...that you don't want government taking money from your pockets to help other people and that it should be family and local communities that help each other. That's fine in theory.

Except it just doesn't work out like that all the time. There are thousands of scenarios like -Everyone else in your immediate family is dead-you immigrated (legally to escape death) and you had a catastrophic accident at work-your parents died in a car wreck-your community(church, friends, family and employement) was wiped out in a natural disaster...etc.

So what do you do with that homeless child with no family, that homeless guy that got brain damaged in a car wreck, that guy that lost everything and is homeless and sick, that family without health insurance because of ObamaCare, that wounded Vet from IRAQ...

Do we just let them rot and die on the streets? That's what your saying you'd like us to do. If you're saying you'd like us to help them a little bit at least keep them alive for a few days and stop that little homeless boy from becoming a male prostitute, then you're saying you would like some socialism but only to a degree. Yes?

Why do you assume people are going to die in the streets if the federal government isn't involved? There are all kinds of local charities and services to serve those in need. I see it all the time in my local community where people VOLUNTARILY band together to help a family, person, or someone in need whether it is money, clothing, food, shelter, health care, etc.

I believe serving the needy is best done locally.

Look, I see it too. Especially in Vegas with Catholic Charities and all kinds of non profits helping people that have no funding from the government. It's huge, but in reality, it's a small drop in the bucket.

If hospitals stopped serving people without health insurance how many people would die? If there was no medicaid or medicare where would those people turn to for healthcare? If ambulances stopped responding to homeless people, what would happen to them? If all welfare was cut off, how many people would lose homes and turn to crime. Serious questions. Secondly, if there was not federal or state funding for education, how would my children get educated? I couldn't afford a private school and my wife and I both work, we wouldn't be able to home school and then how would we be able to afford day care or a baysitter during the day? These are all serious concerns if you stopped all "socialism".

I've never advocated getting rid of medicare / medicaid. By law, hospitals have to respond to homeless people. No one has advocated what you are saying.

People survived before welfare. The problem with welfare is that it has become a way for people not to work instead of just a temporary safety net. I'd argue welfare has increased crime because it leads to broken families and has pushed men out of the home. See the 75% out of wedlock birth rate in the black community.

People were educated before public schooling. I'd argue public schools in many communities aren't educating anyone. Many of these students would be better off not being in school. Catholic school is relatively cheap and if your property taxes weren't so high to fund public schools, maybe you could afford to send your kid to a private school of your choice and actually hold the school accountable.

The problem I have with socialism is that you get one group of people voting themselves the resources of another group of people. What did Margaret Thatcher say, "The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money?"